Help with a pro abortionist!!!!

[Eden]

Wormwood:

One could debate that they are not FULLY sentient for some time after birth given that they lack essential brain waves for concious lucid thought. But that is for another thread perhaps, what I will say is that as long as they rely on the mother for blood, nourishment, and oxygen, they are not independant creatures. Certainly not capable of forming coherant thoughts. Argue this if you must, but for a creature with a forming brain that has never been exposed to words or pictures would have no means with which to express such thoughts in the unlikely event it were possible. Also we are not talking about ninth month abortions or anything, and in the first two months nothing capable of thoughts and feelings has been formed.

So when should we say they become human? Are they human when they first cry? Or are they not human until they can suck their thumb? Maybe they are not human until their first smile. Or is it when they first hold their head up on their own? When they can sit propped up or not until they can sit unassisted for say, 15 seconds? Or are they not human until they can feed themselves? Maybe we should decide they are not human until they can walk unassisted and say one real word.

Oh, I see that you are not talking about “ninth month abortions or anything”. So, you must believe that a newborn baby is human even though they do not have “lucid” thought. I wonder when Einstein became human? Lucky thing he developed lucid thought somewhere along the line. He was completely useless to the planet until then.

So, do you say that a ball of cells becomes human after two months? Or is the ball of cells human after three weeks when the heart starts beating? When exactly does abortion become murder in your opinion? It appears that 2 months in utero is the cut-off for you.

 

[reggie]

One must believe in God to accept the authority of the church. But, the authority of the church does not hinge on belief. Jesus created the church to minister to His people and to be a light to all people whether they believe or not. Some in the church do use her as a means to power but the church’s position on abortion is not about power, it is about the sanctity of life.

The comparison of God to the police is not a bad one. Where you are misguided in is the reason that people obey laws and obey God. Some obey laws out of fear of incarceration or corporal punishment but most understand that as part of a community, for the good of that community we must follow certain rules. If I am tempted to steal, I resist not because I might get caught, but because I know that my actions are wrong and harmful to my community. It is out of love and respect for others that I do not take what is not mine. When I obey God, while there is some fear of being separated from Him, it is mostly because I love Him and desire to be with Him. His commandments are not just for my own good but for the good of the community.

It is inherently self-serving, self-centered and fraudulent that the actions of one upon oneself does not affect others and therefore should not be restricted. Yes, you can do heroin your whole life, but then you have surrendered that life. In doing so, you have deprived the community of your unique contributions to it. Lost in alcoholism, drug-use, sexual addiction or whatever, you hurt your family and those who love you. This attitude is one that says, I need no one, no one should tell me what I can or can’t do. But, it isn’t true, we are all connected to someone, our actions affect others and when one hurts we are all hurt even when we are unaware of it. We are brother and sisters in Christ, a family dependent on each other and responsible for each other.

Now, the issue of American Indians is one for another day. What happened to them at the hands of our ancestors is a tough topic and too complicated for this discussion. I will say that they were not pantheists.Their belief was in one Great Spirit present in all things. They understood that the earth was a gift to man and that in it’s use, man should respect and honor that gift. There is a huge difference between that pantheism.

 

[reggie]

Now I must respond to the sentient being argument. Are you aware that John Locke proposed that until children reach the the age of self awareness (at around two years of age) that they were not yet fully human. As most mothers know, babies do not understand until around that age that they are a separate being. Does this mean that the mother then has the discretion to terminate up to that time. This argument is of course the extreme and one that even the most ardent abortion supporter would reject. But the fact remains that when we use self-knowledge or the ability to feel,or to care for oneself, or to form coherent thought to determine when life has value, we open the door to the taking of any life that doesn’t measure up. Value begins at the same time as life and just as with the authority of the church it is truth. whether you believe it or not.

Human life begins at conception. The fertilized egg begins immediately to grow, it has it’s own unique DNA and the process, left to develope naturally, will result in the birth of a human baby. The Bible tells us that there is a time for all things. A season to plant, grow, reap, live and die. For all living things LIFE IS GROWTH, nothing is the same today as when it began. The plant was once a seed, the tree an acorn, the chicken an egg, you get the picture and all of this life follows a natural process that eventually ends with death. A human begins as an ovum fertilized by sperm. Yet this is only the start to life, all human life. Human life begins no other way. One can manipulate the process but one cannot change it. This process is life and when one prematurely and unnaturally ends the process, they have ended life.

I do not dispute one’s right to end their own life when faced with debilitating disease or infirmity. I think it is sinful and do not condone it but I do not have the power to stop someone who has made that decision. But at least they have made the decision that life is not worth living for themselves instead of having someone else reach that conclusion and ending their life.
Suffering is never easy but it can be redemptive for the individual and humanity when it is offered up and joined to that of Jesus. I do not relish the suffering of others nor my own, but I know that when we suffer and do not offer that pain for a good purpose Satan has won. He is the lover and author of human suffering and when we suffer he rejoices. When we turn that suffering to the glory of God, we defeat Satan’s purpose.

 

[Ghosty]

The courts gave women the right to choose over a non sentient being. Seems logical enough.

Not really. Every human being who has a choice in the first place passes through the phase of being carried in a mother’s womb. This is not an unnecessary step, it’s not an accident, and being a fetus doesn’t lead to “something else”. A fetus will not become a plant, which is about as non-sentient as we can conceive of, it will not become a virus, it will become a human being. That is logic. The problem with “choosing” over a non-sentient being is that it assumes that the logic ends with the person in the womb, which is a fallacy.

Secondly, the fetus is not an “invader” into the woman’s body. It did not crawl in there in some kind of hostile take-over, and it won’t be there for very long as far as human life goes. It’s a temporary resident that, by your own definition, had no choice in its place of residence. If it is to become an adult, it must persist in the womb. If it is to develop adult thought, it must be a fetus, just as it must be a child.

Furthermore, defining things based on sentience makes for a very dangerous proposition. People in comas are non-sentient in this case, as are people with severe autism. I rarely see people who support “choice” supporting the right of caregivers to kill severely autistic people. There are a few, again with those “honest” abortionists like some in the Chinese government and the Nazis back in the day, but few American abortionists are anything like them.

This takes us back to the fact that the fetus is not non-human, but rather a stage in the development of a human being. You can find plenty of humans that have never been in a coma, or who aren’t severely autistic, but you won’t find a single one that was not a fetus. The reason the woman is sentient at all is by virtue of the fact that she was a human fetus at one point. Being a human fetus is a pre-requisite for sentience, for choice, and is not merely incidental to being a sentient human being, like being carbon-based (as there are many carbon-based things that aren’t sentient), but is essential (as there are no sentient human beings who were not fetuses).

To treat a fetus as a non-person simply because it is not sentient (which itself is a pretty weighty assumption, since the central nervous system develops VERY early on, and never reaches a “fixed” state of development; it is constantly in growth and flux as we age) is to deny the fundamental necessity of the fetus stage to human sentience. It also begs the question “does sentience matter”, with the assumption “yes, it does” without providing any back-up for believing that sentience is at all a worthy trait, and without recognition of what is required for sentience to occur in a human. Again, I’ve never met an American abortionist who praises societies for not believing sentience is a valuable thing, espescially when they couch their belief in terms of choices that require sentience.

As you can see, it comes down to one basic, logical point, which is that if sentience matters, then survival of a fetus matters, because surival of a human fetus is absolutely necessary for human sentience. To destroy a human fetus is to willing eliminate a developing sentience, regardless of its current level of sentient activity (which is highly debatable). To protect a sentient, you must protect them as a fetus, or you are not doing them any service at all. Furthermore, the fetus is in infinately greater need of protection than the mother, because it is entirely reliant on outside aid if it is to survive. To deny life to a fetus in the name of “protecting the rights of a sentient” not only makes a mockery of what it means to be a sentient human, it makes a mockery of the very act of protecting (“The honor in protection comes from defending something that can defend itself from something that can’t even act of its own accord”).

“Pro-choice” is an inherently illogical position for these reasons, though “pro-abortion” can indeed be a logical, if evil and inherently destructive, position.

 

[Ghosty]

I want to address some other points you made:

Like I said earlier, someone’s choice will have to suffer.

If you prevent me from killing someone in a coma, my choice is suffering at the expense of a non-sentient. Do you support my right to murder people in comas?

Also, we can speculate what we wish, but the fact remains that it is the newly pregnant woman that has to do everything. She must lose her shape, carry extra weight, adhere to a diet fit for pregnancy, deal with morning sickness and (oh God!) the emotional swings.

You say these things as if they aren’t what her body is designed to do anyway, as if they are some alien changes that sweep over her like a mutation. She has a uterus, she has specific hormones, she has a different nutritional requirement than men already. Becoming pregnant is not an unnatural mutation, it is a perfectly natural course of events for her biology. There is nothing inherently defective about any of the traits you listed, they are in fact working exactly “as intended”. Your perception of her natural process is perhaps defective, however.

Not to mention the enormous amount of other complications and side effects, not the least of which is the ruining of the rest of her life.

Ruining the rest of her life is a side effect of pregnancy? Tell that to my mother, who would argue that it MADE the rest of her life possible. Tell that to my aunt who put her child up for adoption and never had to change a single aspect of her previous lifestyle (unfortunately, IMO). Whatever you, don’t tell it to the child in the womb. They’re the only ones in this equation that can have the rest of their lives ruined (or taken away) as a side effect to what we’re talking about in this thread.

You said abortion supporters who couch their position on choice are illogical, but I don’t support abortion, I support choice…so where’s your “logic” now tough guy?

You are actually exactly the kind of person I’m talking about. You defend the activity of abortion, whether you personally like the activity or not. You therefore provide support for abortion. You are an abortion supporter. And you turn around and say that you defend it on the grounds of choice.

It never ceases to amaze me that so few supporters of abortion, people who absolutely defend the right and ability to have an abortion, don’t simply call themselves pro-abortion. They call themselves “pro-choice”, but they don’t universally support choice. They don’t support the choice to rape, or to beat children with a baseball bat. They support a particular choice, namely abortion, but refuse to identify themselves as supporting that choice. It’s actually a rather sad and peculiar phenomena.

This doesn’t necessarily apply to you, Wormwood, and I want you to know that I don’t assume that it does. In order to break any possible assumptions, however, would you mind answering if you would support a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions? This is not a question of violating anything, as the court cases that legalized abortion supposedly only dealt with the current Constitution, not any future amendments.

What do you say?

 

[mom_07]

Bravo - Ghosty.
However, I am curious to know at what exact moment Wormwood believes human beings change from non-sentient beings to sentient beings?

 

[Hildebrand]

Eden:

So, you must believe that a newborn baby is human even though they do not have “lucid” thought. I wonder when Einstein became human? Lucky thing he developed lucid thought somewhere along the line. He was completely useless to the planet until then.

So, do you say that a ball of cells becomes human after two months? Or is the ball of cells human after three weeks when the heart starts beating? When exactly does abortion become murder in your opinion? It appears that 2 months in utero is the cut-off for you.

Babies, both born and unborn are non-sentinel being. They cannot feel pain nor have thoughts. You can cut off the leg of a newborn baby and it feels nothing. Same with the child in the womb, for partial birth abortion - the child does not feel its neck being stabbed so the abortionist can insert a tube and suck the babies brain out.

And don’t forget, when you enter a Holocaust meseum and look at pictures of the murdered Jews, it is all shock value.

usatoday.com/news/health/2005-05-08-babies-pain_x.htm

religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm

abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp#By%208%20weeks?%20Show%20me!

2bparent.com/prenatal-stimulation.htm

 

[Wormwood]

My, aren’t I the popular one?

Also, we can speculate what we wish, but the fact remains that it is the newly stationed soldier that has to do everything. He must lose his or her freedom, carry extra weight, and adhere…

If this is your attempt to be funny or ironic…nice try.
Unfortunately it is wasted on me. Not only do soldiers have a choice, but also they have the ability to be restationed. If they are too terrified for combat they can be moved to a supply or repair unit, granted proper skills. Where is your glib equivelant? Soldiers knowingly enlist out of desire, and they kill people. Why not defend the victims of soldiers too?

Thank you for agreeing that killing doctors and nurses is the moral equivalent to killing unborn babies

Not exactly, if you read the passage more closely, I was using murder as an “as oppssed to” argument. If the poster’s arguments were simply conveying a messege of the morality of murder, then why not include people that actually are murdered? Because the sensationalism is only deployed as a shock tactic, to bring more people to your side of the argument.

So when should we say they become human? Are they human when they first cry? Or are they not human until they can suck their thumb?

I thought I covered this already…when their bodies can sustain them without outside help (i.e. organ function, not killing and preparing food). Post Birth.

Oh, I see that you are not talking about “ninth month abortions or anything”. So, you must believe that a newborn baby is human even though they do not have “lucid” thought. I wonder when Einstein became human? Lucky thing he developed lucid thought somewhere along the line. He was completely useless to the planet until then.

I’m not sure what you think you’ve expressed here. If einstein hadn’t developed lucid thought, you are correct, he wouldn’t have been much use to us (although admittedly I don’t see how you personally benefit from einstein unless you’re a physicist or a quantum physicist…or if you build nuclear weapons)

So, do you say that a ball of cells becomes human after two months? Or is the ball of cells human after three weeks when the heart starts beating? When exactly does abortion become murder in your opinion? It appears that 2 months in utero is the cut-off for you.

2 months was just a standard example of the legal timeframe for an abortion, not my personal philosophy.

Reggie:

The comparison of God to the police is not a bad one. Where you are misguided in is the reason that people obey laws and obey God. Some obey laws out of fear of incarceration or corporal punishment but most understand that as part of a community, for the good of that community we must follow certain rules.

What society do you live in? If most people obeyed laws out of love and such, there would be no police. There also wouldn’t be an epidemic of over crowding in prisons. People do what they think they can get away with.

It is inherently self-serving, self-centered and fraudulent that the actions of one upon oneself does not affect others and therefore should not be restricted. Yes, you can do heroin your whole life, but then you have surrendered that life. In doing so, you have deprived the community of your unique contributions to it.

At his point I would say more than half of this community wants to be “deprived” of my contribution What really seems selfish is to make someone live the way you think is right. That if i did heroine and died that I should feel guilty for having deprived society of myself, but if my true self knew only suffering, and I could not self medicate because of your stance on life, then is it not you who is being selfish? You don’t have to live with the consequences, so why should you get a say in the actions?

Now I must respond to the sentient being argument. Are you aware that John Locke proposed that until children reach the the age of self awareness (at around two years of age) that they were not yet fully human. As most mothers know, babies do not understand until around that age that they are a separate being. Does this mean that the mother then has the discretion to terminate up to that time.

Well Bill Hicks said, " They’re not people until they’re in my phonebook". I don’t think I would go that far, but as long as the fetus depends on the mother for life, it is her choice. Once born the child can be cared for by anyone, and is therefore a seperate lifeform.

 

[Wormwood]

Ghosty:

Secondly, the fetus is not an “invader” into the woman’s body. It did not crawl in there in some kind of hostile take-over, and it won’t be there for very long as far as human life goes.

Ok I am running out of time, so my replys will be as short and sarcastic as possible
Sometimes invader is the case, such as with rape. Furthermore, it is an unwanted partially foreign body, so in that respect also an invader.

Furthermore, defining things based on sentience makes for a very dangerous proposition. People in comas are non-sentient in this case, as are people with severe autism. I rarely see people who support “choice” supporting the right of caregivers to kill severely autistic people.

Well I have a very uncharismatic stance here so…Like I stated…if it were me I would want to die.

This takes us back to the fact that the fetus is not non-human, but rather a stage in the development of a human being.

If you step on a caterpillar, did you kill a butterfly?

To treat a fetus as a non-person simply because it is not sentient (which itself is a pretty weighty assumption, since the central nervous system develops VERY early on

The CNS develops after the heartbeat. Sometime during the second or third month. Granted it is a system of mild homeostatic mechanisms, but it does reach a plateau which is the threshold for touch stimuli. This was in response to someone’s comments about the fetus feelings, and being aware of its surroundings.

As you can see, it comes down to one basic, logical point, which is that if sentience matters, then survival of a fetus matters, because surival of a human fetus is absolutely necessary for human sentience.

No, I never stated that sentience was important, merely a defining point of humanity. In other words, it is not important that all creatures reach the state of sentience, but once they do, they are essentially human.

If you prevent me from killing someone in a coma, my choice is suffering at the expense of a non-sentient. Do you support my right to murder people in comas?

Well it would depend on what you had at stake. If it was just some guy you saw on the news that was in a coma, you have no business interfering. If on the otherhand, if it were your father, and you were paying the bills, then yes you should have a say. The vessel is not the person, and all you are doing is sustaining the vessel.

You say these things as if they aren’t what her body is designed to do anyway, as if they are some alien changes that sweep over her like a mutation

I said it thus because that is truly how it is viewed by some. The point was not only the foreign nature of the changes, but also the unwelcomness. Truly some women were not designed to be mothers ( I know a 20 year old that just had her tubes tied for that very reason).

Ruining the rest of her life is a side effect of pregnancy? Tell that to my mother, who would argue that it MADE the rest of her life possible

So obviously your mother was not the type of woman that would have an abortion in the first place. I say ruining in the respect that some women want to focus on careers or some other aspect that is abruptly cut off because of the child. For every case like yours, there is a case like mine…parents whose dreams were ruined by an unexpected child, and they both still resent me to this day. Their lives are worthless and I did that for them. I say this for no other reason than to make the point that the case I presented was a real one, some women do feel their lives are ruined.

You are actually exactly the kind of person I’m talking about. You defend the activity of abortion, whether you personally like the activity or not. You therefore provide support for abortion. You are an abortion supporter. And you turn around and say that you defend it on the grounds of choice.

MAN!!! Jokes are lost on you Ghosty…I try and I try to make this more lighthearted…
But you do raise a good point. Is not condemning something the same as condoning it? Perhaps that is the case, but it is hard to draw that conclusion.

 

[Wormwood]

In order to break any possible assumptions, however, would you mind answering if you would support a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions? This is not a question of violating anything, as the court cases that legalized abortion supposedly only dealt with the current Constitution, not any future amendments.

What do you say?

Ah, good question. Well, I look at it like this: To ban ALL of anything is usually a mistake. By this I mean some circumstances call for an abortion( complications with the mother’s health for example). Also it would depend on the numbers. If roughly the same number of people were having abortions when this amendment came up, I couldn’t in good conscience support such a bill because of the future health risks of the young women. If however it were the case that most people wanted a ban, and freelance abortions would be minimal, then yes I would support that bill.

Bravo - Ghosty.

However, I am curious to know at what exact moment Wormwood believes human beings change from non-sentient beings to sentient beings?

Obviously for some of us it will be never. My personal position is when the brain has developed to a sufficent state.

Thanks everyone.

 

[Ghosty]

Sometimes invader is the case, such as with rape. Furthermore, it is an unwanted partially foreign body, so in that respect also an invader.

No, it’s neither an invader nor a true foreign body. An invader is something that comes in from the outside. Sperm are invaders, a fertilized ovum is, by definition, a local body native to the woman. It’s just as native as any organ in her body, medically speaking, and her body even develops an entirely new organ (the placenta) in order to nourish the child and help it to develop. In every sense, including vascularily, the child is an integral part of the mother, not an invader. It is her own body that grows an extended vascular/nervous system to accomodate the new part of her body.

Well I have a very uncharismatic stance here so…Like I stated…if it were me I would want to die.

I’m assuming you’re a male, so I’ll just say this is one more example of God’s providence This is why WOMEN carry our young, not men. We’re not cut out for it.

If you step on a caterpillar, did you kill a butterfly?

As a matter of fact, yes in the true sense of species. A grown butterfly is the same species, with the same genetic traits, as it was when it was a caterpillar. Its appearance changes, but its the same animal as it was before. When caterpillar crawls out of its cocoon, it is not a new born creature at all, but simply a grown lepidoptera (cool new word for the day!).

The question isn’t whether you stepped on a butterfly, which is just a word for adult, but whether you stepped on a lepidoptera. If you believe that an adult is qualitatively different in the sense of dignity and species, you’ll have to indicate WHEN the change happens exactly, as humans change and morph throughout life. We don’t even have a completed skeleton until our mid to late twenties, for example, and our brain constantly changes through all stages of life (you can actually tell someone’s approximate age through a brain scan).

The CNS develops after the heartbeat. Sometime during the second or third month. Granted it is a system of mild homeostatic mechanisms, but it does reach a plateau which is the threshold for touch stimuli. This was in response to someone’s comments about the fetus feelings, and being aware of its surroundings.

The other poster was actually correct, depending on your definition of “aware”, since some people never become aware even when fully grown. In the fetal stage, as opposed to the ebryonic stage, the child is able to move and respond to stimuli. At three months the child has autonomous movement and sensation, and this is the definition of a fetus.

No, I never stated that sentience was important, merely a defining point of humanity. In other words, it is not important that all creatures reach the state of sentience, but once they do, they are essentially human.

So then a person who is in a coma, or an autistic individual, is essentially non-human? Is a person who is knocked unconcious, or experiencing a black-out non-human? They all fail the sentience test.

Well it would depend on what you had at stake. If it was just some guy you saw on the news that was in a coma, you have no business interfering. If on the otherhand, if it were your father, and you were paying the bills, then yes you should have a say. The vessel is not the person, and all you are doing is sustaining the vessel.

Keep in mind I’m not talking about pulling the plug on a machine, I’m talking about actively murdering, as in shooting, bludgeoning, or cutting open his head and sucking out his brain. I hope you understand how dubious a moral position this is, and what it logically leads to (and has in every society that’s taken it).

I said it thus because that is truly how it is viewed by some. The point was not only the foreign nature of the changes, but also the unwelcomness. Truly some women were not designed to be mothers ( I know a 20 year old that just had her tubes tied for that very reason).

If she had tubes, she was designed to be a mother. It’s not having the parts that indicates that you weren’t designed. She destroyed her design, that’s all. Again, these changes aren’t at all foreign, they’re perfectly normal and internal. As for unwelcome, teething is unwelcome, but its not foreign. Eating is welcome, but it does introduce foreign things into the body. Foreign and unwelcome are poor issues to raise, because while a baby might be as unwelcome as teething pains, it is equally unforeign.

You should understand that just because some people view something a certain way does not make their position any more sensical. It’s an inherently unreasonable way of looking at the world.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

I say ruining in the respect that some women want to focus on careers or some other aspect that is abruptly cut off because of the child. For every case like yours, there is a case like mine…parents whose dreams were ruined by an unexpected child, and they both still resent me to this day.

You are no more responsible for ruining your parent’s lives as a rain cloud is responsible for ruining a wedding. The fact that your parents chose to have sex, and then regret it, ruined their lives apparently. For them to foist it on you in the form of resentment is cruel and irrational, as I’m sure you’re well aware.

Again, just because people view something a certain way does not make it rational, reasonable, or even acceptable. Appreciating and accepting all points of view simply because they are points of view is both absurd AND dangerous. Ironically, it’s also the opposite of freedom of choice: it’s slavery to fads.

MAN!!! Jokes are lost on you Ghosty…I try and I try to make this more lighthearted…
But you do raise a good point. Is not condemning something the same as condoning it? Perhaps that is the case, but it is hard to draw that conclusion.

You’ll have to make it more clear when you’re joking, perhaps with a face instead of a . The fact is that people much smarter than myself DO actually make the claims you did, so I wasn’t going to assume you were kidding

I don’t think it’s actually a hard case to make, though, at least not in this case. When the “right to choose” is taken generally, it can be a hard thing to distinguish between lack of condoning and condoning, but in this case there is only one particular choice on the table, and those advocating “choice” are also actively protecting and abetting those commiting abortion. The “pro-choicers” in question are not at all apathetic on the issue.

Ah, good question. Well, I look at it like this: To ban ALL of anything is usually a mistake. By this I mean some circumstances call for an abortion( complications with the mother’s health for example).

People always bring up the notion of “complications with the mother’s health”, but rarely actually demonstrate cases where such is certain. There is a reason for this, and that’s because such cases don’t actually exist as detectable until the time of childbirth is imminent, such as breach births. At that point, all but the Chinese government believe that it’s too far along to abort (they believe it’s ok to abort so long as the child has a foot in the birth canal, and they believe that just about anyone can be killed at any time so long as the government decides to do it). Of course, if one defines raising a child as a “complication with the mother’s health”, then all bets are off. You, being a potential carrier of the cold, are a “complication with my health”. I can only assume you mean life-threatening complications directly caused by bearing a child and giving birth.

A ban on abortions was recently shot down because no such clause was included, but the irony is that all cases in which a mother’s life is definately in jeopardy and abortion is the only option of saving her life, abortions are already illegal. The reason is that such cases only present themselves at the time of natural birth itself, a little late to be performing an abortion under U.S. law. Abortionists shot down the bill using a cop-out, and a false one at that.

Working in medicine I see a lot of really bad medical advice tossed around regarding abortions, advice that would be considered malpractice if it involved anything else. For example, a woman’s risk of life-threatening pregnancy INCREASES with abortion, not decreases. Tubal pregnancies, which are the only certainly life-threatening conditions that can be known about before imminant birth, are greatly increased in women who have had abortions in the past. In fact, I’ve witnessed a number of tubal pregnancies, which require immediate emergency treatment or the woman will die, and every single case was a women with a history of abortion. Yet women are rarely, if ever, informed of the exact medical risks associated with abortion. This would be deviant malpractice in any other aspect of medicine, but it is protected under “pro-choice” laws and interpretations of the Constitution. This is to say nothing of imminant birth complications such as the hemorage risks from placenta previa, which some studies have shown is 600% more likely in women who’ve had abortions.

Medically speaking, abortion makes it much, much more likely for a woman to die from pregnancy. Many of the life-threatening risks of pregnancy that abortion supporters bring up are actually directly caused by or linked to having an abortion. Sadly ironic.

Basically, if you don’t want to die from pregnancy, the best thing you can do besides not getting pregnant in the first place is never, ever having an abortion. That’s a medical fact.

God bless!

 

[mom_07]

If this is your attempt to be funny or ironic…nice try.
Unfortunately it is wasted on me. Not only do soldiers have a choice, but also they have the ability to be restationed. If they are too terrified for combat they can be moved to a supply or repair unit, granted proper skills.

It was an attempt to point out that A.) there always have been and always will be instances in this imperfect life we are compelled (sometimes by the use of state power) to that which is contrary to our self-centered natures for the sake of a nobler cause or for the common good of the whole. B.) that the “choice” argument was and still is an unsophisticated one. All choices are not equal. Some choices are crimes and all crimes are choices.

What it was not is a perfect comparison considering there isn’t one. There is no other instance where we mere finite beings actually participate intimately with God in creation (co-create) of another human being. There are instances when we are called, even compelled to do the right thing even when it’s hard. A better discussion here would be how we can help women to make better life choices that actually effect a better life such as: housing, education, parenting skills, better jobs etcetera. Abortion is a horrible and degrading cultural response to social problems. IMHO

Soldiers knowingly enlist out of desire, and they kill people.

Women (unless they are raped) knowingly enlist out of desire, and they sometimes murder people. The difference is soldiers are defending innocent people against those who would want to kill them and abortive women are unnecessarily killing innocent children.

Why not defend the victims of soldiers too?

Terrorists already have more rights than pre-born infants. The womb is THE most dangerous place on earth. I know that sounds like a glib sound bite. However, it’s a statistically supported fact.

 

[reggie]

I spent the evening doing research on abortion statistics before and after Roe. How many per year before, how many women died due to botched legal and illegal abortions, how many births outside of marriage, adoptions and on and on. My intention was to determine the affects of legalized abortion. I realized after wading through so many conflicting figures that it is near impossible to calculate a definitive number. My conclusion is that in the end it doesn’t matter. Why, you ask? Let me explain.

Each side gives widely varying numbers of performed abortions, both legal and illegal and the number of deaths of women attributed to abortions. The only thing I could ascertain from the data was that since the legalization of abortion, the number of abortions has escalated dramatically along with the number of births outside of marriage. Teen pregnancy has also skyrocketed as has the number of STD’s, divorce, child abuse, incarcerations etc…Can all these be blamed on Roe? The inference I draw is that the sexual revolution and Roe are tied together in an unholy alliance. With the relaxation of sexual ethics came more unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. Women, newly motivated to have careers and forego marriage, didn’t want the inconvenience of a baby. Even with the option of adoption, women did not want to carry a baby because of the physical effects and the emotional distress of giving a baby away. These are understandable. But, instead of taking personal responsibilty for their choice to have sex outside of marriage, women wanted an easy out. So the unholy alliance is this, the sexual revolution created the “need” for Roe, in turn, Roe facilitated continued adherence to the sexual revolution.

Before you cry, but what about the victim of rape? What about the victim of incest? What about the health of the mother?, what about the young woman who can’t support a child due to the abandonment of the father?, understand this, the percentage of abortions performed for the first three reasons is small. The majority of abortions performed in this country are done so as a form of birth control. And increasingly pro-life groups are doing more than just protest abortion. They are supporting crises pregnancy centers which offer financial and emotional support to these panicked girls. The government through it’s Aid to Dependent Children agency offers help with childcare and job training which is designed assist the mother to get on her feet.

So why do the statistics not matter? Because no matter how you look at abortion and the choice debate, all the rhetoric is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize what is inherently wrong. However you look at it, in the case of abortion, a child suffers the consequences of its mother’s wrong choices both before the pregnancy and after. We can debate back and forth about when life begins, when a human is fully human, what constitutes fully human, at what point is the blob of cells no longer a zygote but a human. It’s all semantics and it’s all smoke and mirrors. There is no getting around that once an egg is fertilized the ensuing process is the developement and eventual birth of a human baby.

 

[reggie]

Wormwood:

I live in a society where private citizens out number the police by more than 1,000 to one. Should the majority of those citizens decide to ignore the law, there would be very little chance of stopping them. An example of this would be the rioting after the O.J. Simpson verdict. And while yes, there is a overcrowding in prisons, the percentage is still small and most people who could commit crimes do not do so.

If one looks at societies down through the years, it is true that we all share a human nature that tends to selfishness, greed, self-preservation etc… in other words all the things that lead us to do what society deems wrong. But what is equally true is that in practically every society people have sought what is good, how to be good, how to live peacefully within communities and how to promote communities that benefit the members. This includes all societies, secular, religious, and pagan. I do not pretend that all societies are good in and of themselves, but I do believe that people since the beginning strive to be good and do good.

As a believer of God, I also believe that He has written His law on the hearts of all men and that is why, despite our sinful nature, most people strive for good even when they do not know of or believe in God. I believe that God has revealed Himself to us through the Jewish people and fully in Jesus and in His word we can find the keys to living that good life within society. My husband accuses me of wearing rose colored glasses and thinking that all men have the same good heart I have, but the truth is that I wear the glasses of a believer who trusts in God and trusts that He has made us all for Himself and therefore all are inherently good.

 

[reggie]

Wormwood,

As I said, we can debate back and forth the good(personally I don’t think there is any) and the bad points of abortion. The mindset of pro-choice proponents is pretty entrenched. As a pro-life proponent I simply pray for conversion of their hearts and minds and engage in debates, never expecting to change anyone’s mind but hoping that something will resonate with someone who is on the fence(those who are personally against abortion but support choice).

Your posts have made me very sad for you. I see in them the hurt and anger you feel because of unloving, resentful parents. The sad truth is that many children are born to these kinds of parents and suffer abuse both physical and emotional and never reach their potential. I can’t prevent or heal those wounds, I can’t solve all the in depth problems that cause parents to be unloving or resentful and harmful to their children. I cannot stop the suffering of those children. I cannot undo the damage or stop those children from lashing out at themselves and others. I would not presume to say that one cannot self medicate, that one must face one’s hurts head on and deal. I have not walked in your shoes. I do not advocate drug use but do not object to it. I would support legalized use, but still believe that when one shuts down their life potential through it’s use, it hurts us all in unknown ways.

Each and every person on this earth is a child of God regardless of their perceived value to society, they are valuable to God and therefore to me. I believe that the only perfect society is that in Heaven. I don’t know why some suffer, some prosper, some give unselfishly and some greedily cannot get enough. I do not know the mind of God nor of most men. I believe that if a life exists, God has some good reason for it. Okay, I’m rambling, all I wanted to say is that I know that there is a great many children suffering but I don’t believe that the way to relieve that suffering is by destroying life before it has even had a chance.

I will pray for you that the One who can heal all wounds will see your pain and flood your heart with the realization you are loved and valued by God.

I will not post again on this thread, I have said all I can on the matter at hand. God Bless all of you who fight the good fight on behalf of the innocent victims of the scourge of abortion and may the Holy Spirit touch and remove the scales from the eyes of those who cannot see the unborn as human life and therefore sacred.

 

[Eden]

Not exactly, if you read the passage more closely, I was using murder as an “as oppssed (sic) to” argument. If the poster’s arguments were simply conveying a messege (sic) of the morality of murder, then why not include people that actually are murdered? Because the sensationalism is only deployed as a shock tactic, to bring more people to your side of the argument

By proposing that showing pictures of murdered abortion doctors is equivalent to showing pictures of aborted babies, you are making the murders moral equivalents. You categorized the two together. While both are murder, I would group them in separate sub-categories. The first is the illegal action of a mentally ill mind. The second is a conscious and fully legal decision to end a life.

I thought I covered this already…when their bodies can sustain them without outside help (i.e. organ function, not killing and preparing food). Post Birth.

This is a poor answer. A baby who is born with underdeveloped lungs and needs to be connected to oxygen in an incubator is still human even though their lungs do not work properly “without outside help”.

I’m not sure what you think you’ve expressed here. If einstein hadn’t developed lucid thought, you are correct, he wouldn’t have been much use to us (although admittedly I don’t see how you personally benefit from einstein unless you’re a physicist or a quantum physicist…or if you build nuclear weapons)

Albert Einstein made one of the greatest contributions to the world of all times. He changed our impression of time and space. “*If einstein hadn’t developed lucid thought…he wouldn’t have been much use to us.” *This is chilling but it does answer another poster’s question as to whether you believe a person in a coma or a severely autistic child should be deemed worthy to of life.

What I am saying is that statistically if they were put up for adoption, their childhood spent in and out of foster care would be miserable, and their adult life, statistically in prison would also be unfulfilling. And you would have more people who don’t care about anything, therefore more pro-abortionists.

I am still interested in reading the source of your statistics for the above statement.

 

[Anne_Carmel]

Thank you for your participation in this discussion.